Parenting Advice from Richard Dawkins

We’re terrified of the word “brainwashed.” 

Yet, I propose to you—if parents had done it properly since the beginning of time—we’d be a far more intellectual people than “free-thinking” has made us…

What does “intellect” mean, apart from what God revealed to our ancestors? What can we know that He hasn’t allowed? How can anyone claim “freedom of thought,” if God sustains our very life, while we grope for answers in the brains we worship in His place?

Perhaps this is why the parenting advice of Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist), irritates some of us:

“Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”

Indeed, parents… Teach your kids how to think. But, naturally, you shouldn’t teach “how to think” is better than teaching “what to think.” Because, that would be teaching them what to think…

And definitely don’t tell them what to believe because—Dr. Dawkins believes—this is the best belief. 

If your babies reach adulthood and don’t trust a thing you say, pat yourself on the back.  After all, to quote Dawkins again, “The majority of children born into the world tend to inherit the beliefs of their parents, and that to me is one of the most regrettable facts of them all.” 

Except, some of us believe children were meant to inherit the beliefs of their parents, once upon a time, before something threw the system for a loop.

In the beginning, God walked with the first humans. He taught them about right and wrong, and He outlined the rules for enjoying life to the fullest. Thus, you might say the first “intelligent” thing men did was put their faith in the One with the answers…

 

Anyway, during all this intimate contact with mankind, God instructed His people to make sure they didn’t forget what they were learning. He said, to paraphrase, “BRAINWASH YOUR KIDS.”

“Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.” (Deut. 11:18-21)

I’d bet Richard Dawkins thinks this practice is despicable. When parents repeat “their truths” to naïve and impressionable children, it stunts their ability to ask questions for themselves.  Right? Right?

Yet how does he explain this long letter, rife with conclusions and absolute statements, written to help his 10-year-old daughter determine the “correct” kind of belief?   

Here’s my favorite part: “My dearest daughter…. I want to move on from evidence, which is a good reason for believing something, and warn you against three bad reasons for believing anything. They are called ‘tradition’, ‘authority’, and ‘revelation’.”  

I agree with Dawkins that beliefs should have some evidential support. But doesn’t it sound like he’s teaching her what to believe, in that sentence? Is this not indoctrination of the scientific method?  If Dawkins’ message to little Juliet was “disagree with me,” how far will she take it?

Much to the dismay of Dawkins’ generation of scientists, their process of un-educating children has sort of backfired. These little brains have gotten so good as asking questions they won’t even answer them anymore! Dawkins defends his use of absolute statements—saying essentially, there is such thing as “certain enough,” though no science can prove something 100%. He says agnosticism (or, “I don’t know for sure”) doesn’t have to mean a 50/50 toss-up—so he expects people to  lean safely toward one conclusion or another.

But members of the next generation of “free” thinkers don’t always agree.   After years of being told they can solve anything on their own, if they demand evidence, young people have begun to doubt the very brains they use to ask questions.  Suddenly, Dawkins’ religion of Biology ushers young minds into Philosophy, which has a history of praising people for being “intelligent” when they lock themselves indoors for hours or days, trying to solve major problems like, “How can I know that I know that I know?”   

It’s ridiculous, isn’t it? We send our children to college for learning, and their biggest lesson is they can’t learn anything. Then, they hear echoes of Dawkins’ words: tradition, authority, and revelation are bad.  Yet, when they ask for “proof” that skeptical science is good, they find none there, either. Their doubt and further questions lead, eventually, to an “infinite regress” of skepticism, until they conclude—in frustration—there are no answers for anything at all. 

All of this could have been spared if—somewhere during the Enlightenment era, perhaps?—men hadn’t gotten too “smart” for their own good.  If they hadn’t declared—without reason—that things are only true when they study it themselves, the nonsensical, immoral Religion of Thought wouldn’t have grown out of control.  Because intellectuals allowed themselves to be deceived, they gladly surrendered the only certain, God-spoken truths, which had been passed through tradition since time began.

The results are foolish.

“…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him; but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools…” (Romans 1:20-22)

Science can study many things and produce certain-enough answers. But, it doesn’t answer all the questions of a man’s spirit. Seek God with your whole heart, and don’t let your brain drive you crazy. If you really want to find the Truth, God says you will find Him.  

And when you do PLEASE brainwash your children!  Regardless of what Dawkins says, he indoctrinated his kid, too. The only difference is—rather than the God of the Bible—he sold the impotent gods of Thought and Science…

Theoretically, if Dawkins’ parents had done their job, and their parents had done their job—all the way back to Adam—none of us would be free-thinkers. And it would be fantastic! Satan never would have converted anyone to his Religion of Lies (John 8:44), and all people would remain “brainwashed” by the Creator, who came up with the idea of “true” in the first place…

Unfortunately, no child born into the world has totally inherited the beliefs of their Heavenly Father—which is “the most regrettable fact of them all.”

I Stink

It's official: I have a mild case of gift-envy.  To you natural encouragers...you friendly optimists...you tender compassion-feelers...  I wish it came easier to me.

A few days ago, I realized I'm fulfilling prophecy and obeying Christ when people insult me due to my faith. And, when my dad and husband both remarked that I'm a "gifted" communicator, using my "talents" to shine a little light on the world, I felt a surge of pride.  God says each of us was created with a purpose, so discovering part of mine is exciting.

Exciting, at least, until I think too much about other people's talents, and how theirs seem to come with "perks" mine do not. For example, everybody loves my husband, who is a God-equipped listener and gift-giver. He can take a thoughtful little trinket, and make even the most insecure person feel important. He enjoys treating people. He's good at responding to needs. And who wouldn't want to hang out with him as much as possible?

Then I think of a dear friend, who is a self-proclaimed "conflict-avoider." She just wants everybody to be happy, and she'll do anything to keep the boat from rocking. Like my husband, this girl is impossible to dislike--because she is always ready-to-agree. I'm convinced, the ease with which she "lives at peace with everyone" comes from God. 

[Enter pouty, devil-on-shoulder]  And how do many people respond to someone like me, who habitually speaks the Truth in an unapologetic fashion? Well, 2 Corinthians says prophets "smell like life" to somebody who is saved--but I "smell like death" to somebody who is perishing.

If my gift is pointing out where the lost (or backsliding Christians) have missed the mark, that means I STINK!

The stuff I talk about incessantly gets fairly gritty and personal. I imagine most people can only handle me in small doses--and that's difficult to accept without envying the friendliness and compassion that comes naturally to others.  I don't have a knack for making people feel warm and fuzzy.  I'm driven to hammer on about responsibility, consequences, obedience, etc. etc.  

I mean, it's fulfilling work on one level, because I've been called to do it. I'm equally unhappy when I'm NOT writing about selfishness and service as when I realize it may leave me pretty unpopular. Conviction flows from me as easily as sweetness radiates from my husband.

But, sometimes challenging others with a well-turned phrase really stinks...

----
Addendum: I'd hate to ruin a perfectly good rant, but I feel I need a disclaimer to explain that this is just a rant. I'm absolutely whining and questioning things over which I have no control, just because I'm in a feel-sorry-for-myself kind of mood.   Please don't be offended by it because--unlike in other posts--I'm not trying to make anyone change behaviors and feel conviction about some deep spiritual truth. I'm just jealous, and I'll get over it.  :)

Addendum #2:  I explained my theory about how "I stink" to Luke, and he said something along the lines of, "I'm proud of you, and you're doing a good job, and you're the queen of the world."  Okay, that's not a direct quote, but my point is, who doesn't want to hang out with this guy?! HE SMELLS GREAT!

Christian Oppression...

I came across this picture online recently.

Do you notice anything ironic about it?

If not, let me change the scenario a bit.  Experts project that, within two generations, Christianity will cease being the dominant religion. The Muslim people have a birthrate of roughly twice that of the non-Muslim population, and Islam may be the most widely-practiced religion sometime even before you and I die.

My point is not whether this is “good” or “bad.”  I’m only saying that—shortly—the pie chart above may look completely different, with “Muslim” being the big blue area that currently says “Christian.”

Now, let’s imagine it’s the future, and the predictions have come true—there are more Muslims in the world than Christians. Then, let’s suppose I take that pie chart and put a quote above the blue, Muslim area which says, “I’m taking over this plane.”

Is that okay?

…Or would a Muslim have the right to complain that I’m stereotyping?

If I assume something negative about an entire group of people—and then post a picture making fun of them on the internet—is that oppression? I think it would be offensive, regardless of how many Muslims exist, how many of them become terrorists, whether it's a joke, etc. etc. 

It's wrong to categorize and then crack jokes.

------

I’d just like to say two things in response to the pie chart, as it exists today. First, it doesn't matter if Christians out-number members of other faiths in the world. Individual Christians still can experience oppression at the hands of an aggressive group. 

Even if there are 1,000,000,000,000 Christians in the world and only two Hindus, if those Hindus seek out others to beat, torture, or even "just" make fun of other beliefs, that's persecution. If they overpower Christians for their beliefs in any way, that's oppression.

Regardless of whether Christian beliefs are“popular," the fact remains:  Some of my brothers and sisters ARE oppressed. They are thrown in jail, maimed, cast out of their country, or even killed, because their religion is unpopular in their immediate circle.

It disgusts me that ignorant Americans, with access to chart-developing software, can mock this tragedy with the sarcastic quote, “Help, we’re being oppressed!” just because THEY’VE never seen an arrest, a hanging, or a beheading. (Here are a just a few true examples)

Secondly, I’m lucky enough to live in a place I don't fear for my life, so I've never personally said, “Help, I’m being oppressed!” That's why I don’t enjoy having those words put in my mouth.

Yet I HAVE said things are unfair--even in America--since society is allowed to make statements about Christians like me which political correctness prohibits being said about anybody else. My "Taking-Over-This-Plane" chart is just one example. 

If you believe it's NOT okay to stereotype Muslims with a flippant quote attributed to the whole group--but you believe it's fine to do so with Christians--then here's a thought from ONE Christian on the subject. (Feel free to make a digital poster and pass it around.)

"Hey! I'm being treated unfairly!”

If You Don't Like My Teaching

An Open Letter to Victims:

This blog is not for you. Unless you want to be offended by an arrogant, out-of-control, right-wing nutcase, stop reading and go find something interesting on Youtube. (Preferably a talking animal or something else that won’t accidentally inspire you to make a personal change.)

I talk a LOT about individual responsibility around here, and I don’t buy that anyone in America is helpless to society. I believe everyone runs into obstacles (some legitimately unfair), but that most problems occur as a result of sin. And even truly mistreated individuals have the power to overcome it. This is good news because it means change is possible! Bad things can be fixed! 

Unless you like being a victim.  If you like blaming other people, or you’re not brave enough to take charge of the things over which you have control, then run. Run away! Don’t let me challenge you with my “you-can-do-it” insanity!

 I’ll use studies and statistics often. But I don’t fill each post with footnotes for two reasons:

1.      1. If you’re already inclined to disagree with me, you’ll find something wrong with my research anyway.

2.       2. A large percentage of my citations don’t come from a source in a science journal. They come from The Source: the Bible. If you have a problem with it, I dare you to fact check this Source for yourself. (Spoiler: MANY people have tried to disprove it and failed.) Meanwhile, if you practice the biblical principles I put forth, you’ll see they work 100% of the time.

  

Sometimes my style causes an uncontrollable urge to call me names and accuse me of having serious problems. But I only want to talk about ONE serious problem, which all of us has in common: sin stemming from selfishness. If you don't think you're a sinner, you’ll find nothing of value here.  If you think being a victim will work for you eventually—you like protesting the government, you blame your spouse/kids for your problems, or you want to enjoy lots of food/sex/recreation in hopes they make you happy, that’s fine! Just find another blogger for support.     

Here, you’ll see that selfishness which leads to disobedience of the Bible which leads to societal problems interest me. You might say that’s my specialty.  I’ve done a lot of thinking about it. I’ve done a lot of reading/observing. And this is where I put my conclusions... So, if you wouldn’t tell your English teacher, “I don’t trust all this stuff about verb tenses…where is the proof?”  (Or, if you wouldn’t insult the math whiz with, “You always have answers, and it makes you sound cocky. Is there anything you DON’T know, Mr. SmartyPants?”), then please don’t criticize me when I share what experience and practice have taught ME. Just find a teacher who says what you want to hear.

I’m just saying, if you don’t like what I’m teaching, kindly exit my classroom.

Thank you.

P.S.  For a similar read-at-your-own-risk post (which includes a few reasons I appeal to The Source), check out For Those Ready to Eat.

Square Circles: Undefining Ancient Concepts

-------

I was thinking today... Why do all circles have to be round?

It just doesn't seem fair, restricting "circularity" that way. What if a triangle wanted to be round, too? Or a square?

I realize the very definition of what it means to be a circle--since eternity--requires roundness. And, I know most people say anything with angles just isn't a circle. It's "impossible." But think outside the box with me! Get with the 21st century! Just because we've always defined something one way doesn't mean it can't change...

From now on, I'm going to push for acceptance of the "square circle."

I'll picket at the courthouse and call my congressmen. I'll talk about square circles every time I'm in public. I'll put "square circles" in the newspaper and on TV, so everyone can see square circles are funny and they have good fashion sense. Actually, they're really not much different from regular circles.  (Or, as I sometimes differentiate, "traditional circles.")

Come to think of it, just putting "square circles" and "traditional circles" in two different categories constitutes inequality. Why should there be a separate title for circles with angled-tendencies? Notify the press! Spread the word! Using a special adjective for one circle or another is narrow-minded and bigoted. It's time to move on and forget we ever prevented square circles from being circles at all...

Sorry if I'm going on and on about something you think is unimportant (or even downright nonsensical). My aim isn't to offend. I only want to be heard. And to have a couple holidays devoted to circularity. And to have my agenda taught in schools. And to be signed into law.  Is that so bad?

I guess you could say it's very dear to me--the issue of square circles.
Or, as I like to call them:
"CIRCLES."  

Just a Clueless Kid

Why would any self-respecting young person listen to the teachers, doctors, and politicians making excuses for them?

Supposedly, if kids see a cartoon camel on a pack of cigarettes, they will have to smoke. If their bodies desire sex, they probably will give in. And if their friends drink or use drugs, we expect our children to run alongside, like so many sheep. This offended me as a teenager, and it should continue to offend youth today.

Where is the faith in our young people? And, if kids really are incapable of making good decisions, where is that magical line between grown up and "too stupid."

When I was sixteen, I gave a speech in public speaking class outlining why I thought the death penalty should be extended to teens. I don't remember all the details, but my biggest point was, "You don't turn 18 and suddenly become aware of right and wrong." Even a toddler, I argued, knows when he or she is forbidden to do something, and will act appropriately sneaky when approaching the cookie jar. Can we really say a 13 or 14-year-old simply misunderstands that killing is a no-no?

You might as well say they're stupid.

Well, friends, (and especially my young ones), the Bible says let no one look down on you because you are young, but set an example for other believers..."  It would be nice if we had a get-out-of-trouble free card--and many adults are trying to hand us one. They call us immature and impulsive. But God says, even in our youth, we are not clueless.  We can set an example.

Nothing in Scripture suggests that kids aren't smart enough, informed enough, or controlled enough to be accountable. Be wary of people who say otherwise. 

In fact, be ANGRY.

Everybody Needs a Cause

Awhile back, I prayed that God would help me see the full potential of those around me. I believe he has given talents to everybody, and I wanted to better recognize those talents in the people with whom I interact.

This isn't the first time I've asked God to show me things from His perspective. In the past, I've asked to be angered by the things that anger Him (some would call this "sensitivity to sin."). But once I started feeling really worked up by all the depravity in the world, I realized I needed to add another request to my list. I asked for a sense of sadness over things which make God sad. (In other words, "more compassion").  Generally, it's easier to follow God's rules when you have the same emotional response to the world He does, so I thought these prayers were a good place to start.

Unfortunately, ignorance IS bliss in some cases.  And, by asking God to enlighten me with His perspective, I was opening myself to an uncomfortable, emotional roller-coaster ride. For instance, it turns out there's a lot of sad stuff in the world! People fight with eachother, they get sick, they die. But, what I didn't expect was how genuinely sad I would begin feeling when considering the plight of the unbeliever. They're like sheep without a master, Jesus said. I used to think He was frustrated with Jerusalem for rejecting Him. Disobedience does anger Him, after all.

But now I think Jesus spent more time choking back tears than raising his voice.  "How often I have longed to gather [you, Jerusalem] together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing..." Unreturned love is very, very sad...

Anyway, back to my prayer about recognizing talent. God agreed to open my eyes, and I've been shown that humans are an incredible bunch. There is no shortage of creativity on this planet, and, if you need convincing, check out these videos of a Rube Goldberg Machine, and the Techno Jeep Music.

On the other hand, humans don't just do "cool" or "creative" things--we also are capable of rallying together and effecting major, positive changes around us. Some of us are great speakers, writers, and organizers. Others possess tireless energy and optimism for certain goals. Some are ready to write a check whenever the need arises. As a result, we can boast progress in cancer research, mobilization in the face of natural disasters, lowered teen pregnancy, longer life expectancy, and a whole host of other small victories for mankind. The only problem is: when people aren't given a reason for doing good, their activism has a lot of potential to fly off track... 

A quick example would be the "green" movement. Now, as a Christan, I believe it's important not to abuse the earth, which has been entrusted to our care. But, we have to balance our desire to treat nature respectfully with the understanding that God filled the planet with natural resources for our use.  If we don't keep a healthy perspective, our tree activism goes a little crazy. 

Another example: the other day, Luke and I were following a car which had no fewer than 50 bumper stickers on the back, all of which had something to do with four-legged friends. ("Please spay and neuter your pet."  "Cold noses make for the warmest hearts." "I love my shelter dogs." etc.)  Now, as with the Tree Love, I'm not saying there's something inherently wrong with standing up for animal rights... But I can't help wondering what inspires such extreme passion...?

How does one decide "I'm going to be a voice for the animals of the world" while another says, "I'm concerned about childhood obesity." Think of the thousands of "causes" we could join. Why does Person One talk urgently about AIDS awareness, while Person Two can't stop thinking about people with unclean water in Rawanda?

I submit to you we have been given certain passions by God. But, those who don't submit to His Authority--Christians included--are missing the point.

I mused to Luke, "Well, everyone needs to have a cause. We need to feel like we have a purpose." And that's when the sadness settled in. Each of us already has a purpose, but some of us just don't know it. And, when people don't know the truth about Jesus or they've never asked Him what they should be doing with their lives, they'll latch onto any cause with the same sense of importance that was meant to be reserved for passionately loving God.

Before somebody points out the obvious, I have no idea whether the tree person OR the dog person was/wasn't a Christian.  My question remains the same either way. What's your purpose? What's worth your time, money, and the space on the back of your car? What ignites extreme passion in you, and WHY?  

What if the green activist believed there is a God whose return will be soon, and PEOPLE were going to die in sin? I bet she would make one awesome evangelist, full of genuine compassion for humanity. God created her, an emotion-filled, outspoken individual, but I wonder if He cries when her talents are directed at the trees...   What if the animal rights activist were just as concerned with lost souls as lost puppies? If there is a God who demands holiness, that's a much bigger-picture issue than whether we neuter Fido. She was created with a talent for "spreading the word" and unashamedly declaring her beliefs to the world. I can just see the amazing things God has in mind for her, if she lets Him.

Everybody has talents. And everybody feels compelled to use those talents for a cause.

What is your cause, and why?


Addendum: I forgot to mention another thing I saw this week--a person looking for purpose in a heartbreaking dead-end situation. He posted to a discussion forum that people who believe in an afterlife are simply unable to accept that "when you're dead, you're dead." Yet, he "loves life" too much to debate with believers--and he would rather contribute to "good causes" like "life-extending research and cryogenic preservation."  (In other words, he wants to be frozen and later thawed to live again.) He tried gathering support from others willing to donate to the cause.  

I would argue: it seems as though NEITHER of us accepts the"when you're dead, you're dead" philosophy. But what a sad example of the way one can spend time/resources if he won't accept the purposes given to him by God.

Goody-Two-Shoes

We weren't supposed to cross Taylor Street.

It was a busy road--at least for 7-year-olds to navigate--so Mom told us to stay away. We were allowed to ride our bikes around the block or to play in the less-trafficked Leeds street. But, there's only so much fun available within the boundaries--right?  That's why my brother, Tim, loooooved every excuse to put a toe over the "Taylor Street" line.  

"Oops, my stick flew into the road. I'm going to grab it."

"I only touched Taylor Street for a second!"

"I'm not in the street. I'm standing on a rock in the street."

For whatever reason, I never felt confined by parameters the way Tim did. If our parents said "don't," I usually didn't. On the occassions I strongly disagreed with them, I'd debate the rules verbally. But I rarely defied them behind their backs--especially if they provided a reason for their guidelines. For instance, "You have no reason to cross Taylor Street, and it's not worth the risk that a speeding driver might hit you."

They were right: I had no reason to cross Taylor, and it was dangerous. But that road called to my strong-willed and rebellious little brother like the music of a circus or the bells of the Icecream Man (who, incidentally, usually rode up from Taylor Street and provided Tim with what he believed to be another valid reason to disobey...) 

It was as a seven-or-eight year old--calling warnings to my thick-headed brother--that I first was called a "Goody-Two-Shoes."

------

In highschool, it was a similar story. Since I took rules seriously in a world where parents and teenagers alike are taught to EXPECT defiance and rebelliousness from teens, I was one of the weirdos. There were drugs; there was sex. I'm sure there was shop-lifting and worse yet. But the behavior which annoyed me (and I assume annoyed our teachers) the most was the "petty" disruptions, comparable to stepping on a rock in Taylor Street.

I went to a private school and was blessed to have many good friends who lived what they claimed to believe: that right is right and wrong is wrong. And the teachers called us "good kids." But, there were others at the school--those who made nuisances of themselves and routinely got in trouble for bucking against authority--who scribbled on desks and talked in class. They defied the dress code and then complained about the teachers who wrote them up. And they had a different name for those of us asking "why not just follow the rules?"    Goody-Two-Shoes.

-----

The vocabulary is a tad different in the adult world. Over here, we like to say, "It's my life" or "Don't judge me," when we don't have a good excuse for our actions, yet refuse to admit we're behaving like rebellious children. But anybody who has been called "holier-than-thou" or told to "mind their own business" should recognize those names for their playground equivelent: Goody-Two-Shoes.

It's sad, really. Because the Bible tells us that wise men take rebuke to heart and recognize correction as a blessing. No one likes being wrong--but when a fellow brother or sister points out your wrongs in love, her or she is giving you an opportunity to fix it and not be wrong anymore. The classic, "Don't judge me, Goody-Two-Shoes" is a last-ditch attempt at a comeback from a guilty, defenseless party, and it leaves me wondering...  Why not just take your toe off the line? Why not back away from Taylor Street? Shut your lips during class? Wear a longer skirt and be respectful to authority even if you disagree?...

-----
Our preacher talked about "Thermodynamics" yesterday, specifically the law which states everything is heading toward the same temperature. (When you take a pizza from the oven to the counter, the pizza warms the air and the air cools the pizza until both the pizza and the air are the same temperature...) The problem is things spoil at room temperature. SO, if you want hot pizza (or an icy drink) you can't allow the natural law of thermodynamics to take over for too long. Matter tends toward the same temperature--which isn't always pleasant for our tastebuds--and it also tends toward total disorder. After several days, the pizza or iced drink won't just register "unideal temperatures." They will be completely rotten.

He used the verse: "...because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I'm about to spew you out of my mouth."  GOD HIMSELF is the one who spoke those words. He is disgusted by wishy-washy, half-devotion. And, most surprisingly, He would rather we be completely cold toward Him than claim salvation while neglecting to follow His rules. It's as if God is saying: "Cross Taylor Street, if you know what's good for you. DANCE in the road, if you must. Come to school half-naked, if the dress code is so completely ridiculous. But don't call me God and think you can write your own commandments."

Unfortunately, the world loves lukewarmness and hates extremes. Those who break BIG rules are societal deviants. The murderers, thieves, rapists, and other "bad guys" might be called "totally cold," and we frown on them. But, those who are hot are just as bad. They're passionate about doing good whenever they can and determined to follow the rules. And they actually think others should follow the rules, too! Those guys are freaks. They are legalists. They are conservative extremists.

Extreme cold makes you a criminal. Extreme Hot makes you a Goody-Two-Shoes...

-----
Oh, Christians, you know the rules, so why do you want to play in the street? It's tempting to believe I'm just judgmental, but you act as though God Himself isn't going to judge you, either. He will! And it will be by HIS standards. Standards which say your half-commitment is even more disgusting than outright disobedience. He would rather have your extreme cold.

This is the generation which, while singing along with DC Talk, decided being a "Jesus Freak" wasn't such a bad thing. So I wonder, can we renew our acceptance of lables like "legalists" and "Goody-Two-Shoes"  if it keeps us from being lukewarm and spoiled, vomitted from the mouth of God?

This Post Has Been Rated PG, for Strong Language

I’ve never been a fan of the trend to celebrate “bitchiness.” You know, those girls/women who proudly display shirts saying, "drama queen" or "the rumors are true" or whatever...some statement which claims pride in what should be considered a fault? When I hear those messages, I think, “Thanks for the warning” and steer clear.

But, apparently, there ARE times being labeled with rudeness is a compliment. For instance, if the person labeling you doesn't seek your good, has no interest in getting to know you, and simply wants to inflict as much emotional damage on you as possible, (in the fewest number of words) then you can proudly accept their name-calling with the understanding they don't know any other way to express themselves.

Yes, I was called a bitch this week. Not only that, another person in a totally separate situation questioned my intelligence, my reading/writing skills, and my abilities as a teacher all in the same post. Actually, “questioned” isn’t the correct word. As I’ve said, fair and genuine questions are no problem for me—actually they excite me. But mean-spirited accusations are another story entirely.

Okay, so you may remember my somewhat-recent post about the importance of fathers: For Almost Every Problem, the Solution is “Daddy.” In it, I referenced an encounter with a 14-year-old girl on YouTube, who had convinced a small group of people that my dad—a stand-up comic—was hers. You may further recall that I stepped in to clear up the confusion by insisting I was one of only four Branyan children, and I jokingly asked if she was joining the family officially by attending Thanksgiving dinner. What I DIDN’T mention in the post was that the girl responded with “LOL, totally see you there!”—a gesture I took as a good-natured acknowledgement of “you caught me,” and the conversation was over with no perceived ill feelings…

Until I got an email from YouTube services telling me another stranger had stepped into the discussion. This one said: “Onlyuntakenusername: your channel says your name is Luke. So, yeah. You’re a liar.”

(sigh) As someone who prides herself on truthfulness, this was difficult to ignore. And, as somebody who doesn’t appreciate when people say things over the internet they would NEVER say to a person’s face (like, perhaps, name-calling in the very first sentence), I struggled to figure out how to respond. Mostly, I was trying to decide which proof of identity to offer, out of 23-years-worth, to show my name is Amanda and my dad is a comedian named John Branyan. But, also, I wanted to point out how completely stupid it would be for me to LIE about that during the process of flagging someone else for making the same claim.

So, I said, “Blast! You’ve found me out. I’m a young male posing as someone named Amanda while simultaneously accusing someone else of the same offense. OR, I don’t have a YouTube account, and my husband’s name is Luke. I guess we’ll never know. BUT, if you’re still concerned, you can “like” John’s page on Facebook and flip through his photos for one that depicts both me AND Luke. Actually, you should “like” John’s page either way.”

Snarky? A little. But I tried to lighten the mood with a shameless plug for my dad at the end. And notice, I STILL didn’t call her any names, though she accosted me with a badly researched personal criticism and therefore...as my kids say...she started it. I didn’t even call the 14-year-old a “liar” when I had absolute proof of the fact--namely that my mother hadn't given birth to her. Nor did I defame the young girl in the blog post I wrote afterward, though she never would have known if I had. But this second person felt justified in branding me with what I consider a serious offense?...Bad form.

I firmly believe there is no reason to start bitter rivalries with people on the internet, using words or techniques you’d never say in person. Call it a pet peeve (though, I’d call it common courtesy). But, if you are the type who throws virtual mud, prepare to have your foolishness exposed. And, beware, my sarcasm probably will appeal to you even less than realizing you were incorrect about something.

Now, some people, when bested, actually take a step back and think, “Yes, it was dumb of me to jump to conclusions,” and thus, respond with humble concession. My new friend did not do this. So, she must have playfully raised the white flag, the way the first girl did when she said she WOULD see me at Thanksgiving? No, she didn’t do that, either. Girl #2 said:

“Onlyuntakenusername: Ooh, somone got defensive... I'm sorry, did I hurt the poor wittle girls feewings? Take some midol, it helps with the PMS, bitch.”

Classy, huh? And of course fair, relevent, and all the other things I love about the expansive, anonymous internet. At least I convinced her I’m a girl, right? This basically concludes that particular example of my rough week. But, to hear about my extremism and how I’m an ignorant, immature, faith-shoving, poorly-educated teacher who keeps a god-forsaken blog, you can check out the comments in Risen from Apes, Teaching Little Apes, and especially, If You’re Too Open-Minded, Your Brains Will Pop Out.

And, now you know why last night I was feeling perturbed and pondering the obvious lack of self-control observed by too many angry computer surfers. (For Heaven’s sake, name-calling in the comment section of a post dedicated to the fact that I have no respect for name-callers?...) Anyway, that's when I stumbled upon one of the best things Blogger has to offer: Ray Comfort.

I have no idea how a blog which regularly gets 400 or 500 comments has yet to be featured as a Blog of Note, but it’s a great resource for people interested in civil back-and-forth. Right at the top of the page, Comfort states he won’t tolerate swear words or incivility, and he regularly posts videos, quotes, and anecdotes to inspire discussion. It’s exactly the kind of blog I'd want to keep, if I were as dedicated and thoughtful as Mr. Comfort AND if my original intent for this blog were to write about apologetics. Believe it or not, I once set out writing for those who already believe and wish to become more like Christ through hands-on service, sacrificing their own desires if necessary. (The whole “ask Amanda pseudo-questions and then criticize her answers as if she is gluing my eyes to the screen and forcing me to read" thing has been sort of a recent development…)

But, Ray Comfort created his blog for the very purpose of chatting with people who think differently, so his posts are more theology-specific than my own part-diary, part-half-baked-thoughts section of the cyber world. Get this—Comfort has offered Richard Dawkins $20,000 to appear for a debate, but Dawkins won’t do it. Yeah, he's that confident... (Which probably means he's immature, faith-shoving, and poorly educated, too.)

Okay, this post is growing long. But I’m getting to the point, I promise. It’s your fault, readers, because my blog statistics say I get more hits the wordier I am—which goes against EVERYTHING one learns in a “writing for the internet” class. I’m just warning you. You keep reading my endless thoughts, so you keep getting them. Anyway, Ray Comfort starts every one of his posts with an actual quote from one of his critics. The one from Monday, March 28th, in fact, features a kindly individual who declares Comfort to be “infantile,” which is very, very close to my own lofty title, “immature.” So, my favorite thing about his blog is it's a place I realize I don't have to take it personally. Other generally nice people get chewed out when they say something unpopular, just like me!

Now, this is a good and bad thing. The good news is, I can go laugh at the ludicrously negative, hateful, hurtful things people have said to Ray Comfort when I’m receiving mean comments myself. But, it’s bad because it proves that laying your heart on the line is hard, and the general response probably won't get better.

My dad wrote to me several weeks back, saying he was proud of my attempts to put the truth on the internet—and proud of my candidness in all areas. But he was afraid I was going to get hurt. I told him, “I already have been hurt. And odds are good it will happen again.” How’s that for truth and candidness? For all my confidence, for all the long tirades, for all the sarcasm and tongue-and-cheek statements I make, I’m still flesh and bone. You'll have a tough time proving I’m a liar or disproving God's existence, but don't be surprised if you're able to injure me. Random, totally unfounded and unfair comments are not filtered through cyberspace and landing in front of a faceless individual. I'm human.

So, this week’s lesson in selflessness? Taking it in stride. No, I won’t buy an "I'm a Bitch" T-shirt. And I’m not sure if I can handle the antagonism as well as Ray Comfort seems to—letting it roll off his back until he finds someone who actually wants to talk. (Even someone willing to talk in exchange for $20,000!) But, I will press on with what I believe to be a God-given mission to challenge people, even if this makes them uncomfortable to the point of lashing out like a cornered animal.

The thing I love about Ray Comfort is that he genuinely enjoys talking with people who seek the truth. Oh, he teases, calls out, and downright denounces those who just want to argue. But he speaks in love with people whose only "fault" is being unsure of their beliefs. He doesn't see atheists as the enemy. He wants to help them find answers, if they're truly asking for them.

This is something we have in common because--and I mean this seriously--I love atheists. I have a real burden for anyone trying to accept the message that life is meaningless and there is no hope after we die. And that's why I write. That's why, even when someone actively tries to "get a rise out of me," I’ll continue writing only things which I would SAY in person, and only things which I am prepared to defend honestly and fairly. I will not purposely injure another--because I have no reason to fight with any of God's children. And finally, though many have labeled it arrogance, I write with bold, insistent confidence because I have a wonderful relationship with my Heavenly Father, and I crave that experience for others. The worst that could happen to me, should I continue to keep this blog, is for cowardly strangers to continue picking apart my character. The worst that could happen to someone who doesn't answer the tough questions is they go to Hell. I'm not willing to place my feelings above another person's salvation.

And so I write on.

BRAZEN ACT OF SELFISHNESS ALERT

Normally, when I talk about specific acts of selfishness, I try to hang out my OWN dirty laundry. (Or, that of my husband, with permission of course.) :)

All of us have bad days. Each of us is self-serving at times--downright rude at others. And I do enough uncalled-for, me-focused things to keep this part of cyberspace hopping--so I don't share "Jerk Alert" stories very often.

BUT, JERK ALERT AT APPLEBEE'S LAST NIGHT!

Seriously, I want to post the story because I'm still so baffled by the rudeness I witnessed. I literally was blown away by this guy's conduct.

When we first got seated, two young girls (maybe late teenage years?) came to the table, clearly ready to pitch us their fundraiser opportunity. I admit, my first reaction was an internal "Aw, crap" because I don't like having to say "no." But with all the kids asking for money for various trips, we often have to...

Fortunately, this one was easy. We'd happened into the restaurant during a day Applebee's agreed to donate 15% of every bill to a student ambassador's trip to Japan, provided the customer presented a coupon to the server. So, the teenage girls gave us the coupon, told us all we had to do was pay our bill, and thanked us. No problem.

We continued looking at the menu and chatting with our friend--barely paying attention to the girls as they visited a table across from us, which seated a young boy, woman, and a man. But, we couldn't HELP but notice when one of the girls said, "Hi, I'm going on a trip--" and was cut off by the man with a loud, sarcastic:

"Oh, you're going on a trip? How nice. We're here to eat. Thanks." Then he turned his back to them.

What the heck?! I mean, I know people are sensitive about being solicited in general, but was that his ONLY option? He couldn't hear them out and discover--like we did--that they weren't actually selling anything? Luke and I exchanged astonished glances and forgot where our own conversation had been going because we'd never seen such an overtly-self-interested scene in public before.

I honestly would say it disturbed me, mostly because I can't even figure out this guy's motives. It seems to me he snapped--but why?!

And what did he have to lose?... He couldn't even let the girls finish their sentence before politely declining the offer? Naturally, we watched that table the rest of the night with curiosity, and I just kept wondering: what causes people to react that way? If he had considered the pros and cons of other options, would he still have chosen to place his own meal (which, by the way, hadn't even arrived from the kitchen, yet) at a higher level of importance than another human--making a scene and embarrassing two girls, for....whatever reason?

Oh, if I can do one thing with my life, I want to help people THINK. But usually, stories like the above just cause ME to do the thinking--often being left with no explanation for the extent of human selfishness in the world.

So Frustrating It's Cute

Yesterday, I had the following conversation with a 3-year-old student at lunch time. This is proof you don't have to juggle ten kids with various disabilities to be driven crazy. One child is plenty.

(Note* We were eating chicken legs, and the 3-year-old boy was gnawing on a small bone fragment.)

Me: Please don't chew on that. It's a piece of bone, and it could poke your mouth.

Boy: This?

Me: Yes. That thing in your hand. It's not part of the chicken you can eat. It's a piece of bone.

Boy: This thing?

Me: Yes! Take it out of your mouth, please. It could make your tongue bleed. Or, if you swallowed it, you would choke...

Boy: This?

Me: YES! Take it out!

Boy: Can I have more potatoes, Miss Amanda?

Me: After you take the chicken bone out of your mouth, you can ask me for more potatoes.

(Long, thoughtful pause. Then, a big smile.)

Boy: You want me to lick it?

Me: NOOOOO!....

At this point, the conversation with the little boy ended, and I shifted my attention to yell at a coworker, who was laughing in the corner. Education will kill me yet... :)

I Don't Need a Man! Except Uncle Sam...

This is why I struggle to rally behind most "feminist organizations."

For some reason, to be concerned about women's rights in America, you also have to be radically against the idea of traditional families. Supposedly, a real advocate for women fights for her right to have the job she wants, to have as many children as she wants, to have her own house, etc.

But to suggest the need for a partner to accomplish these goals is anti-feminist.

Some highlights from the above article:

-"the government shouldn't promote marriage."

-"children should be considered a public expense."

-Lives would improve if pay for women went up "much more than if people simply got married and stayed married."

On the other hand, of course, it's okay to promote reliance on the government. We're supposed to offer childcare assistance, housing assistance, and welfare/food stamps when necessary. That's only logical, since life is expensive and everyone needs help sometimes. But, don't suggest that help should come from a loving, supportive life partner.

(sigh) when will women realize that the overall condition of their gender has NOT improved since the adoption of a selfish, "I don't need a man" mentality?

Teaching Little Apes

Today, I stumbled upon a book by Dale McGowan called Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion.

(sigh)

I have to admit, I'm a tad interested in reading the book in order to highlight (literally) all the logical errors that MUST be inside a manuscript whose very title is inconsistent. I, like apparently many atheist parents, am curious to know how one would teach "morals" without an Author of Morality. Unless your children become the only ones never to ask "why should I?"--I honestly don't know what they could say.

If you don't see a problem with the concept of teaching ethics without a belief in God, let me ask you this: what does the word "ethical" even mean if there is no Absolute High Standard? If we crawled out of a slimey pit 10 million years ago, why should we be "caring" individuals, trying to raise "caring" children? It seems to me, a parent dealing with a child asking "Why should I keep my hands to myself?" is in the same sticky spot as the talk show host answering the question, "Why shouldn't a husband cheat on his wife?" (I'm referencing a previous post, "Risen From Apes")

There is no way around it: if we originated from apes, there is no reason to "be good." In fact, it gets more cerebral than that--because the word "good" implies a standard. To say something is good means something else is bad, and I would have to ask, "According to who/what?"

Many people argue their morals are based on what brings the "most benefit to the most people," or what brings the least harm to the most people. But why is that definition better or worse than the belief that a shrinking, suffering population is "best?" Keep in mind, we all originated from nothing and for no reason! At what point did one of our ancestors say "if our numbers grow, and we feel pleased with ourselves, then rightness has been accomplished!?"....and, even if you can hypothesize and answer to that question, where did the very concept of "rightness" and "wrongness" come from anyway?

The point is, there's no explanation for "ethics" and "morals" and no need to be "caring" without a God who put those laws in place. Even the supposedly-nobel effort to advance human life and make people happy falls short of being an acceptable standard, since human life itself is not sacred unless it was created intentionally. In other words, if there was no reason for our origin--if we evolved through chance rather than being planned with purpose--then there is no reason to continue existing.

It must be tough teaching that to a Little Ape....

Get Off God's Lap

I have become increasingly disappointed with women's devotionals. Apparently, every one of my sister's in Christ is a D-personality, task-oriented, hurried and harried, and pulled in all different directions. And, devotion writers have responded by delivering the message, over and over again, "Jesus is the safe place to curl up with a nice cup of coffee and unwind."

We are handed the story of Mary and Martha, under the assumption that all Christian women are Marthas, wearing themselves out in service and simply needing more down time. We are given the example of the woman with the bleeding issue and told we just need "a touch" from Jesus' cloak, like she did. And, through these stories and personal examples of "PTA meetings, soccer games, church responsibilities, and laundry" the writers of women's devotions constantly praise our activities while inviting us to the Jesus Spa. There, we can "step back," "take a break," and "spend a little time--just you and God." Change nothing else! This is all you need to live a complete, Christian life.

Part of my issue is that I can see this misguided advice for what it is because I do not have PTA meetings, soccer games, or loads of other typical, American-mom responsibilities, and I know from experience that loads of freetime/me-time isn't all it's cracked up to be. Sure, I keep busy with my job at the daycare, house-keeping, and other details. But, ultimately, I find plenty of down time and chances to spend in God's Lap, and I've found He doesn't want to massage my shoulders and let me return to the things which are breaking me down to begin with.

So, my main problem with the so-called solution to "get a little God" is this tactic presents a Christianized version of the message the world sends ALL women: "Be more selfish."

"Yes, you are superwoman, and the hand which rocks the cradle rules the world. But everybody needs time for themselves. So, take a minute and relax! You deserve it! Then you will feel prepared enough to go right back to the draining, lifeless activities which brought you here..."

I probably should clarify I don't mean to suggest that prayer and time with God inherently are selfish. Only let me explain, with no exaggeration, that eight out of ten devotions I get in my email are telling me to take more time for me. Every time I'm looking to hear a word from God, I'm told the word is "rest, sit down, take a load off." And I just have to wonder when God is going to tell me what He told his disciples:

"GO!"

"Don't just sit here, waiting for Me to make you feel better. I've already promised to give you whatever you give me--pressed down, shaken together, and running over. That includes time and energy. If you're feeling drained and tired all the time, perhaps your goals aren't the same as Mine. So, sit down long enough to get your instructions. Then, GO! I'll go with you, but go."

A hot drink and bubble bath can fix a lot of things. And if you are an over-worked Martha, you won't be able to go anywhere until you've spent time recouperating. But, no amount of rest will substitute for the fact that we were created to do things for the Kingdom. And, if you aren't fulfilled by the meetings, games, and chore list, may I suggest the very core of your system is broken--beyond what a quick trip to God's Lap can "fix?"

Take it from someone blessed with the opportunity to snuggle up and listen for God's voice with frequency--He isn't waiting like a pit crew to polish your hood, change the worn tires, and send you out for more of the same. He won't affirm your daily, spirit-killing routine, just because you turn him into a half-hour coffee break. And, shock of all shocks, He doesn't always agree that you are a hard-working, selfless individual, deserving of more, more, more. You can hear that from any commercial or talk show host in the country.

Rest in God's arms when the battle gets heated. But don't take His comfort as a license for selfishness. Don't run back to home base looking for peace, when you really need to get out of your comfort zone for awhile.

Go, look for opportunities to turn that selfishness into service, and you may just feel less "busy" and more "energized" than ever.

Go.

Risen From Apes

I took a long hiatus from television this past month, but I managed to see part of a talk show today, during which a husband tried to convince his wife to "just accept" his girlfriend of five years and adopt an "open relationship." Let's all share! True to form, and in the same fashion as the Tyra incident, the audience flew into an uproar at the situation.

But, in my opinion, the husband and the guest author who supported him made the more logical arguments, based on the beliefs of our culture. If it had been a formal debate, the husband gets the trophy.

The guest author had written a book about "negotiating infidelity," in which she recommends couples draw up a contract regarding permissive extra-marital affairs. Example: "You can visit strip joints and look at porn, without meeting my wrath." Or, "You can have sex with other women, as long as you don't cuddle afterwards." Supposedly, this prevents that pesky "cheating" technicality. She says, if your man has needs and urges, a loving mate would make allowances for him to fulfill them. And, obviously, the husband agreed whole-heartedly while the studio audience booed and hissed.

But, here's the argument, made by this author, which temporarily disarmed those in the room: "We are risen from apes, not descended from a fairy tale. Why do we expect monogamy?"

Silence.
Because--if there is no God--we shouldn't expect those we love to act anything more than animals.

So here is my ultimatum, readers: By all means learn the art of selflessness and becoming a servant if God is on His throne. Help your neighbors, love your spouses, and kill the prideful, self-loving part of your spirit, as an act of worship to the Lord. Show restraint and will-power in honor of the Prince who turns life into a fairy tale. And please, keep reading my blog to learn how I'm doing (or not doing) in this area, if it inspires you to do the same.

But, if there is no God, don't let me rain on your parade. Don't listen to my rants about education and the government and anything else which is sure to end with a conclusion about what your responsibility is. Why take responsibility? Why control yourself? Why conform to social restraints, like monogamy and trustworthiness? God's existence or nonexistence affects everything, and if you've decided He's a myth, then go hog wild.

And I sincerely wish you luck and the least amount of pain possible as you try to extract love and kindess from other apes like you.

Let Me Tell You a Story (Things I Got from Mom)

A professor once made the statement: "If you say you have a story, everybody will start listening." Whether the audience continues to listen depends on whether the story is any good. But ears perk up for, "Let me tell you a story."

So, let me tell you several stories about things Mom did when I was growing up:

I like to depict my brother, Tim, and I as semi-wild street hooligans--since we spent so much time barefoot, outside, and forming our own brand of 5th-grade martial law in conjunction with the other neighborhood kids. When Mom was tired of "She stuck her tongue out at me!" and "He hit me!" she would boot us into the fresh air, where we settled disputes with a jury of our peers (or sticks and rocks).

We rode in a bicycle gang, smoked candy cigarettes, wiped the blood off our knees with leaves, and threatened to call our dads if an "enemy" from another neighborhood tried to breach the permimeter of our territory. In truth, I probably owe much of the fact that Tim and I didn't become one of those socially-inept homeschoolers to our "secondary education" with the other barefoot punks on the block.

But, that said, my mother wasn't content to let our grammar suffer, or to watch her children take up a more serious brand of smoking anytime soon. She was a teacher--gosh darn it--and she was going to teach us something. And the day she referenced Stuart Little, with no comprehension from her two darlings, helped make up her mind.

"You don't know Stuart Little? He's a mouse, guys!...Well, not a mouse. He's a boy who looks exactly like a mouse."

(blank stares)

"He has human parents and everything."

(no response)

"One day he even gets caught in the curtains...and, oh, forget it. We're going to the library."

I was an early reader and probably could have read Stuart Little myself. But Mom made it a night-time ritual to read several chapters aloud, and sometimes, when we were lucky, she would read during the afternoon while she nursed the baby. When the story was over, I enjoyed a feeling of closure that was both satisfying and disappointing. Every good story leaves you wanting more. But I was in luck since Mom borrowed Charlotte's Web after returning Stuart. (That's right all you movie watchers. The films had nothing to do with eachother, but did you know E.B. White wrote both of the books? Thanks for the info, Mom!)

We read all summer--well, Mom read, and we listened enthralled. Even my "ADHD" brother closed his eyes and pictured the panicked Mrs. Little, searching for Stuart while he was missing, and the evil cat intent on having his master for dinner... And I got a little misty-eyed at the thought of a tiny pig being drowned in the river by Fern's daddy. (Spoiler: The pig is spared...several times, as it were.) It was such a peaceful, entertaining, and educational time, we read The Indian in the Cupboard series next--four books in all. And THEN we read the Boxcar Children, beginning to end. (Or rather, we read to somewhere in the middle of the series before discovering the library was missing one of the books, and we requested they order it to complete their collection. THEN we read to the end.)

I hear my mom at the daycare from time to time--when I say things like, "you just went potty, so lay back down and take your nap" or yesterday, when I swear she possessed my body and said, "I don't have to give you a reason for everything."

But, I had a flashback to the Summer of Books earlier this week, while I read to some of the kiddos in my class. As I said "the end" and one little girl removed her fingers from her mouth long enough to say "read another one" it occurred to me these stories easily could stay with my students forever...
Mom taught me to pause in the right places and to use different voices for different characters, (without distracting from the story). But, most importantly, she taught me that everyone likes a good story long before that professor told me so.

---
Yesterday, while on the phone with Mom, she shared a different kind of story with me about a volunteer in the toddler room at church--who recently allowed a man she met on the internet to move in with her.
"I asked her if they were living together," Mom told me. "And, when she said 'yes,' I told her I needed her to step down as a volunteer, since her sin is not a grey area in the Bible."

Apparently, this lady grew angry immediately and began shouting at my mother:

"I just can't believe it! In a place where I'm supposed to be accepted, you're going to judge me?! It's none of your business what I do in my personal life, but Christians are the worst for judging people...etc, etc....I'm going to find a church that will accept my choices." And out she stormed.

Oh, tough one. If there is one thing of which Christians have been rightly accused in the past, it's being judgemental--unforgiving of sinners. And I wondered how my mom responded to this difficult issue. After all, there is a verse in the Bible that says, "Judge not lest you be judged."

But, when the lady contacted her again later, Mom calmly gave her explanation, "You probably will find a church that let's you continue to sin, but it will not be a Bible-following church. All of us mess up, and it's wrong for Christians to hold your past sins over your head. God hates this type of judgement. But when a supposed believer continues to cling to his sin--in the present time--then Christians have to make a judgement call. We have the Book of Rules, and there are specific guidelines for dealing with someone who blatantly ignores those rules--they are to be judged by the leadership. And, when they still won't repent, they are asked to leave."

This explanation makes me proud. Christians are allowed to judge?! What's more--they're supposed to? From the perspective of a generation holding banners that read "It's my life" and "who are you to get involved?" the term "judge" is the ultimate offense. And many churches have begun to agree that judgment is bad and it's none of our business.

Here's the rub: no innocent person ever subscribes to a don't-judge-me defense.

When you're innocent, you're free to deny the accusations. Or, a guilty person may realize their mistakes and FIX them--rendering them "innocent" yet again in the eyes of God. But only a sinner, trapped in a corner, would turn the blame toward the whistle blower instead of repenting.

Consider, no defense lawyer in his right mind would appeal the jury with a speech beginning, "None of you were directly affected by my client's murders--so it really is none of your business. Besides, all of you have made mistakes before. Who are you to judge?" The answer is, the jury of American peers was created to judge, and the church has a responsibility to issue a verdict to its own members, too. Christians should not tolerate selfish, hard-hearted sin any more than our society tolerates its own rule-breakers.

And I learned that from my mom.

He Made Me Kill Me

Ellen, Tyra, Oprah, and your local news anchors all want you to hop on board and stop teen bullying. With several headlining teenage suicides being broadcasted the last few weeks, the philanthropists are waging war against the teasing that causes these deaths.

Wait, causes them? As in, "The bully made him commit suicide?" Are we, the public, really accepting that conclusion and writing checks for various End Bullying campaigns?
If so, why have we abandoned the age-old playground chant, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me..."?

Look, I'm not condoning the bullies' actions. And, if I ever catch my kids being rude or taunting, they certainly will hear an earful. However, bullies have been around forever, yet the suicide rate in this decade is higher than ever. Could it be this generation of teenagers is less mentally stable than the one before, and maybe they haven't been taught to handle stress properly?

I don't think that's a crazy assertion, if you consider other headlines. These days, parents march into the classroom and chew out a teacher if they don't like the curriculum. This is a generation which prefers to file lawsuits for "pain and suffering" or "defamation of character" rather than letting things go. And, most worrying, these kids are represented by lawmakers who would love to make "hate speech" illegal--which means punishing anything that offends a minority group.

All of these scenarios speak a very loud message: if you don't like what's being said, STOP IT HOWEVER YOU CAN!

Americans--and possibly the world in general--have lost the ability to ignore anything. Our skin is so thin you can see our chicken-hearts beating right through it, and we cry "no fair!" whenever our panties twist. I talked in a previous post about our tendency to use laws to fight our moral battles, and this is a similar situation. Except--though we theoretically could outlaw the building of mosques should we so choose to defame the Constitution--no number of laws will ever stop "hate speech."

As we become more sensitive and less adept at ignoring things, the list of "inappropriate" or "offensive" things will grow. Newspapers and authors of books will be sued for statements which historically were protected by free speech and press. And, really, it isn't hard to imagine a day when opinions like "homosexuality is wrong" or "Jesus is the only way to Heaven" fall into categories like sexual and religious discrimination. Your beliefs could be illegal.

If you've read this blog since the beginning, you know I place high priority on individual responsibility. When we learn to control ourselves and take care of others, we'll make the biggest impact on our little worlds. But that leaves no room for blaming others. You can't point fingers at teachers when your kid can't read. You can't waste time holding grudges or--worse--letting them fester until you simply must take them to court. And you can't buy the statement, "The bully will make me kill myself."

My heart goes out to the families of the teens who took their lives. But these anti-bullying campaigns, with their star power and ample air-time, remain misguided. Instead, we need to cultivate strong individuals who know how to shrug off negativity and ignore the jerks muttering "hate speech."

From Civil Rights to Selfishness

My nap was ruined today because I made the mistake of visiting a website devoted to "feminist blogs." And, these ladies weren't just discussing how to tell off your bigoted boss or the best way to light bras on fire. No, they were talking about politics--specifically the "inequality" which still exists and "reproductive rights" (read: freedom to kill babies) which they deserve.

By the time I had read two or three headlines, I was too worked up to sleep. I tried to relax, but I kept daydreaming about slapping a self-absorbed feminist--right in the middle of her speech about empowerment of anyone fortunate enough to be born with ovaries.

What bugs me is the mindset behind this particular brand of feminism, which also plays a role in Black Power struggles and the political demands coming from lower-and-middle class folk. All of them have the same mantra: "I deserve________." The philosophy stemmed from the Civil Rights Movement, when the blacks of this nation were correct in saying, "I deserve equality." But, the mindset has been polluted badly since then. Now, simple pride in your race, gender, or sexual orientation has become an elaborate form of selfishness.

I wrote along these lines for a class once. And, since I don't have time for a lengthy post today, you get to read that recycled piece.

_______

***I'm writing an essay on the African American response to 'failed policy' from 1970 to the present for my black history class. So far, I've enjoyed the class, and the way the black culture evolved and thrived despite oppression is pretty remarkable. However, now that we're looking at the contemporary era, I'm getting frusterated. It's becoming more clear to me how the entire nation shifted from support of EQUAL rights toward the self-absorbed "My Rights" mess we're in now. Here's what I'd LIKE to say in my paper:

The Civil Rights movement was a beautiful point in history because a group of oppressed people banded together and slowly helped abolish unjust laws which had been keeping them from pursuing happiness. This process is what the forefathers intended when they proposed “a government run by the people,” and blacks—along with other minority groups who caught the movement's spirit—proved U.S. citizens COULD change policies that didn't work.

But, I'm afraid much of what has been labeled “unjust” and “failed policy” since then has resulted from Americans of all colors mistaking the right to pursue happiness for the right to have a government which makes them happy.

I don't think most people understand that the Civil Rights movement is inspirational because of how unfair America's laws were at the time. The Movement was necessary because segregation and discrimination were legal, which clearly unleveled the playing field and contradicted the Constitution's guarantee that all men have the same shot at being happy. However, much of the dissatisfaction and controversy today comes from people with that same Civil Rights Spirit, carrying a very different message. The groups are just as angry at the government and just as determined to get results, but instead of saying, “I want my fair chance at a good life,” they're complaining, “Washington hasn't made my life good yet!”

It was during the seventies that oppressed people started coming out of the woodwork and--here's what gets me--ARGUING over whose troubles were worse! Feminism began to flourish, but when white women appealed to black women as "sisters," black women said whites didn't really know suffering because of their priveledged race. Then, black feminists created the NBFO to discuss the issues specifically affecting their race and gender. But, less than a year later, the poor members were unhappy, saying the organization only dealt with middle class trouble. AND the black lesbians claimed the organization ignored gay rights.

So, who needed more advocacy? Blacks? Women? The poor? Gays? When reading this part of the textbook, I'm really confused about who to feel sorry for. Usually the "heros" are much more clear, such as Martin Luther King Jr. who encouraged his race to endure hardships peacefully, always asking for the same simple thing over and over and over, until blacks couldn't be ignored. But when it comes to the 70's, I've just decided not to feel sorry for anybody.

The fact is, it's much easier to support a group like MLK's which has a clear strategy and is willing to die for the cause than it is to support several groups of whiners. I guess the biggest question I have is, what else did they want the government to do? If everyone is being oppressed, isn't no one being oppressed? Doesn't that mean the playing field is level, which gives everyone the same chances? Do these groups really believe that straight, white men have ZERO troubles and are single-handedly responsible for the problems of every body else?

The only solution would be passing laws which intentionally held white men down and gave a special boost to anyone who felt unfairly treated. (Then again, I guess we call that "affirmative action"). And, I suppose the government could give loads of money to places where the Church should be stepping in. (We could call it 'Welfare.') And, maybe it would appease the people who just need recognition if we establish holidays like Gay Awareness Week or Black History Month.

Please excuse my sarcasm, Dr. Kneeland, but you see, I believe very strongly that laws do not change people's hearts and minds. So, if feminists, gays, African-Americans, and even straight, white men are asking the government to force "equal" treatment on a national level, if they're asking the government to hand them jobs and guarantee housing, if they're asking the government to keep making laws and setting up programs until oppressed people are happy, every policy will be a failed policy. _____